I watch it, but wouldn't recommend it.
I never particularly enjoy it, but its always pleasant enough, and so in many ways I watch it for its mediocrity. It should always provide 45mins of relatively entertaining material, but is rarely much more than that. Also I rather entertain myself by watching it in a sort of 'so how do you do that' way. That said, will be interesting to see if Stephen Moffat continues to make it darker and darker - we could soon be at the point where children don't just hide behind the sofa from Dr Who monsters, they're driven mad!

I mean, I KNOW the general premise of the show:

Dr. Who is a Time Lord alien guy--now, I don't know what a "Time Lord" is, apart from the fact they can regenerate James Bond-style every time a new actor is needed and, in the Bond style, apparently this alien race also has a British accent by some astrologically-amazing coincidence--who goes through space and time with one two "companions" in his Police-Box-Thingy--and yes, I know it's called the TARDIS and what that stands for, I just know it as "The Police-Box-Thingy"--doing...stuff...eitehr going on a one-off adventure or else fighting things, most commonly flying space-trashcans called Daleks and proto-Borg cyborgs called Cybermen--and while it's not fair to compare, I suppose, and the Cybermen came first, from what I've seen the Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation kick their cyber behinds in every conceptual and design-oriented way--and that the show began in 1963 or so, and so is one of the only long-running sci-fi shows to pre-date MY beloved franchise, Star Trek--although technically, to blay Trekker, the first PILOT of Trek was shot in 1962, with a slightly-different looking Enterprise, a REALLY old-school, 1950s-looking bridge and uniforms, and all different actors and characters except for Leonard Nimoy as Spock, making Spock the one character to appear, including the last movie, in every iteration of the TOS Star Trek crew, so TECHNICALLY Trek may have Who beat in time, but I digress--and apparently it's "Britain's Sci-Fi Cult show" the same way Trek can be called "America's Sci-Fi show," though that'd mean we imported THAT, too, from Canada, and...

Yeah, that's enough. :)

But really--I don't get it...

WHY is this guy so damn interested with human beings, if there's a whole galaxy out there, and the humans are always backward in comparison to him and he must save them?

WHY not use that time machine to just fix every problem?

IF he hates the Daleks so much and IF they're such a threat, why not go back to before they were created and be sure they never were created a la the attempted solution to John Connor by the Terminators in that sci-fi series?

And then...

Well, David Tennant is, in my opinion, an EXCELLENT young actor--his "Hamlet," with Sir Patrick Stewart as Claudius (Who vs. an evil Captain Picard...see what happens when Shakespeare's involved?!) was a fantastic version, and my favorite "regular-length" version, since comparing it to the 4-hour Branagh epic is unfair...

But he just seems so over-the-top as Who...is that the character, or bad acting, or what? (Granted Shatner was over-the-top as Kirk a lot, but that was the 1960s, when that style of acting was more allowable, and it made Kirk iconic in that time period...this is the 2000s, and the new Trek movie didn't have the Shatner-ized Kirk...? Is this the character, or Tennant, and if the character...how can I sympathize with a guy with so much power and a serious case of ADD?) :p

Matt Smith...I'm sorry, at least Tennant was entertaining in his corniness, and I could kind of buy he was maybe jsut an irresponsible space-imp-creature-thing...this guy, bow tie and all, I just can't take him seriously...HE'S supposed to be this almighty time traveller?

And the episodes...

Well, I always recommend TOS's "The City On the Edge of Forever" and TNG's "The Best of Both Worlds" when folks ask which episode to break in with, a really great one...

What's a sure-fire, can't-hate-it Dr. Who episode I can try, because the one's I've seen have ranged so far from "Silly and Ridiculous, With Some Good Moments" (Tennant battling space withces with Shakespeare, and you can tell why I'm more generous to that one) to "Boring As All Hell" (Matt Smith...and the Earth is swallowing people...and...I guess there are sudden;y random lizard people in the final two seconds, huh?) to "WTF?!" (Matt Smith and...Purple People Eaters, I have no clue what these things are, I'm lost!!!) :p

I think there's a few things to keep in mind.

First, it's a very old show (60's I believe) and in keeping with the general "feeling" of the show, some things may seem dated.

Second, he is the last of the Time Lords, the rest being exterminated in a great war with the Daleks, so he really has no one besides humans (and some other random people he runs into) to spend his time with.

Third, it's a literary trick (which you should be familiar with) to have someone who can represent an ignorant audience (The Doctor's Companion) in a story that is hard to relate to. Arthur Dent serves this same purpose in Hitchiker's Guide.

Let me look and try to recommend a good one (you have Netflix?)

And the bonus question, one that's REALLY confused me...

HOW does that pen-shaped thing--"Sonic Screwdriver" or something?--work?! That thing can do...everything?

Again, like the Police Box he uses, if it cn do everything, how does he ever have a problem, this is a huge problem when I watch the show, I think the guy's trapped and there must be some really well-written answer to the issue, something the Who character has to use his wits to solve...and he whips out that thing and BAM! problem solved!

I hated it when the Gary Seven character--see: "Star Trek's Dr. Who" only with all the personality of cardboard in one of the most boring episodes ever--used such a device, and Q uses it...but he's...well, not a bad guy, but not a main character, he's a walking Deux ex Machina, almost literally as he's omnipotent, and he makes an appearance so infrequently, about once per season in TNG, and is so fun for that one-off, I can overlook the fact he snaps his fingers and anyhting can be fixed, that's part of the fun, ONE time...

But Matt Smith pulls this thing out, and the tension of the last ten minutes is gone! :(

@abgemacht:

Can you explain or answer any of the questions I posted in my absurdly-long post after your wonderfully-short one? :) (I'd say it's like algebra, I just don't it, only it's MORE annoying--math's logical, I just have trouble with it, and anyway, this is dramatic work and sci-fi to boot, the stuff I'm supposed to actually GET!) :p

@figlesquidge:

I'll ask in my infinite ignorance...

Why would kids hide behind the sofa to Dr. Who? Hell, from what I've seen, kids would be sooner to hide in fear from a Twilight Zone episode than this (though with today's kids, that may be because, of course, if it's in black and white it MUST be terrifyingly bad!) :P

@abgemacht on those three points:

1. I guess that makes sense...though Trke doesn't feel dated for me, but of course the Original Series is...

2. But with a whole galaxy of people, I still don't get what's so special about humans unless, as you hint, it's jsut a device as humans are the only one's watching the show? (Oh, crap, I just offended the Vogons and Klingons in one shot!) :p

3. OK, that makes sense, I guess, the Companion/Dent comparison...though Dent left Earth because it blew up, why's the Doc putting these poor apes in danger? (And I still don't know what a "Time Lord" is, is that his species, or a title, or what? And no, no Netflix, sorry...I don't even have any credit to my name yet financially, no cards or anything...)

I see. His species is Time Lord. They have a few qualities such as 2 hearts, an ability to reincarnate themselves and they are non-temporal. It is not clear to me whether their ability to manipulate time is purely technological (because of his dependence on the TARDIS) or it is some innate ability of their race. They have a pretty strict code (really more of a religion) which dictates in what capacity they can manipulate time, which makes sense for an advanced race. This accounts for many of the "why doesn't he just go back and time and fix it" questions. Perhaps a cop-out, but I like to think of it as more of erring on the side of caution with having extreme powers.

His companions is clearly a literary device (which makes sense), but humans are also the closest species to Time Lords, so it makes sense he'd want to hang around them since he's now alone.

Try watching "Dalek" or "The Empty Child / The Doctor Dances" with Christopher Eccleston from 2005, or "The Girl in the Fireplace" (2006), "Blink" (2007), or "Midnight" (2008), all with David Tennant.

Or you could go old school and watch the one I have on right now, "Planet of the Daleks," but if you think the new series is mediocre, dipping back to 1973 would be a mistake.

Also: as far as "go back before the Daleks came about"... they did that. Episode called "Genesis of the Daleks". One of the best of the old series, in my opinion.

@abgemacht:

Thanks, OK, that makes sense, somewhat, if it's a species-wide moral code thing (although to again play the Trek/Who bit, since I know the former far more than the latter, I'm not always very fond of THAT series' Prime Directive, the code that prohibits them from interfering with internal affairs of other space nations or, the one that more commonly makes me want to punch the characters' faces in--usually Archer or Janeway, Kirk and Picard seem to fair better here, and Sisko's so busy fighting a war, he generally doesn't have time to get into these matters--the "we won't interfere with less-advanced species and their development" code. I mean, no one likes the idea their heroes playing God and coming across as arrogant, but what's worse, that or saying "We won't save you from imminant doom, even if you ask, because WE have a moral code that helpsm US sleep better at night." Again, it's why Picard and Kirk fair better here, the former would usually find some loophole or way to save them anyway and not break the rules, or at least not too badly, and the latter, in typical Kirk fashin, would just go in and do it his way, consequences be damned...maybe if there's a Doctor like that, one that breaks that moral code, I'd like him better, especially since this Matt Smith guy comes across as a smart aleck, and when I'M too annoyed by someone's smart aleck arrogance...) ;)

If we're closest to these Time Lords, you'd think humanity would be further along, too...unless we're to the Doctor as chimps are to us... ;)



And if there's one on YouTube I'll watch it, looking now to see if I can find a full episode, as I'm obviously not going to race out and buy the DVD of an episode and show I might not like after the first viewing (which is a shame, as my local Barnes and Noble has more Doctor who, for some perverse reason, than Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, AND Shakespeare DVDs COMBINED! Everything from black-and-white ones--I think they're black and white?--to Tennant!)

So I'll look for an episode in full online...and since there are apparently so many of them, who's a Doc you'd recommend, knowing I'd like a blend of the "Kirk" mentality, ie, breaking that code, with Picard/Sherlock logic, and probably not someone like this Matt Smith guy (smug AND a bow tie? You fail as a space hero!) :p

@Jack:

Is that one online on a site, then, if it's good and gives insight into both the origin of the good and bad guys?

And just because, I'll ask a question that's probably akin to asking why they never got off the island on Gilligan, but...

If they went back, why didn't they just incinerate them all then and there? Heck, when Archer found the Borg in ENT, he tried to fight them off, stupid as he was otherwise...granted he failed--obviously he couldn't win, as his show as a prequel--but it made logical sense, he was in a ship that was 200 years prior to Picard's, and HIS ship couldn't defeat them, or else did so at extreme cost...

Why not kill them all if he could, or put them in a bubble, or something? (Unless I find the episode on google, in which case, don't tell me!) :)

OH!

Good, I think I found Jack's episode on tudou!

Though it says (1 of 6), and each part is like 20 and change minutes long...

Wow, are all episodes like triple-headers in terms of length or something?

Many of the stories from the old series are 4-parters, 25 minutes each. There are quite a few 6-parters too, "Genesis of the Daleks" among them.

If you're going to watch the original series, try "Spearhead from Space" with Jon Pertwee, "The Ark in Space" or "City of Death" with Tom Baker, or "The Caves of Androzani" with Peter Davison. All 4-part stories, all excellent and accessible to someone who isn't too familiar with the series.

Yeah, the old series did 4-6 serials per season, each of which was 4-6 episodes long.

Bit different.

@n8back:

Is there any canonical distinctiuon/difference (aside from the time difference) between the original series and the new oens (which I'll assume start with...whoever the guy with the nice big schnoz and lesser hair and a leather jacket starred in, Christopher Eccelston, is that him? I think I bought a DVD of that show for a friend once when I found out she liked the show...only to find out she had a crush on TENNANT...oy. ;) Anywho, is this like Star Trek, where TNG and later series are built on and work off of ideas from Kirk's era, or is it like James Bond, where the Moore and Connery and Craig eras are all the same, all one-off films--occaisonally a few two-offs or so--and the main difference is jut who's Bond or who's Who...AH! KNEW I'd get a pun in there eventually!) :)

Hmmm...

Looks like of the suggested ones, Jack's Dalek episode, Spearhead from Space, and City of Death are the three that are definitely available in full on tudou...

Well, I don't think I want to break in with something too dark, Trek was always at it's best when it was exciting but not too dark (hence my liking TOS and TNG over DS9.)

So Daleks or the Spearhead? Any suggestion before I commit my evening?

I WANT to enjoy this, if it really is Holmes-meets-Trek, so I don't want to be put off again like I was by Matt Smith (have I made it clear how contemptable that episode or two with him was for me?) :)

Im a huge fan and have been since the 80s with Tom Baker as Dr Who. Tnis new guy sucks and ive lost interest. The last two doctors before the lastest were great. If i recall correctly, the doctor can only regenerate 12 times and this is the 11th doctor - all of the doctors build upon each other in sequency and the doctors time line is linear although he can travel in a nonlinear time from our perspective - if that makes sense.

So the Doctor's almsot dead/beyond the point where the series could continue?

Well, if this is such a big franchise, surely there must be away that...

Well, since I found it first, I guess I'll watch Jack Klein's Dalek episode and hope it's as awesome as "The Best of Both Worlds" was when that grabbed me in.

They are all part of one continuity. At least in theory. There are nitpickers, but its decent.

OK, I'm only halfway through the first part of the Dalek episode--still no Daleks, though--but I've already decided...

Whoever that is playing the Doctor, I'm assuming, in the hat and trenchcoat and scarf is AWESOME...with dry with like that he's almost like a futuristic, curly-haired Brett-Holmes! :) I already like him A LOT more than the Smith guy, though for a story with Daleks in the title, I wonder why none have appeared yet, you'd think they'd be in their own story...

@obiwan

It is, like Star Trek, generally "supposed" to fit into the same continuity, though when the show is nearing its 50th birthday, there are plenty of errors.

As for Genesis, every episode of the old series ends with a cliffhanger (other than the one that finishes the story, of course). The stories with Daleks in them tend to save their first appearance for one of those. And remember, you're watching a story about the creation of the Daleks, long after they were an established part of the show. So they're building up some backstory.

And yes, Tom Baker was fantastic. And he played Holmes once, in a version of The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Yeah, I finished the first episode, I'll definitely watch the second one now, that was good...a bit of a slow start, but good, and I want to see where this is going, though that guy at the end, I have no idea who he is--maybe he was established in the show already--so we'll see how that pans out.

And he played Holmes? I now HAVE to see that! :D

I dunno. I like Matt Smith quite a bit. Gives the impression that he's really a 900 year old alien. Bit strange, bit arrogant, but if you were a 900 year old time traveling alien, you'd probably either be a monster or incredibly flippant. Or both.

Oh, Davros. Its the beginning, not the end for Davros.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZzCrpqT5E&feature=related

Damn, my post didn't post...

Long and short of what I said:

Tennant, as both the Doc on the one time I saw him and as Hamlet, came across as eccentric, yes, but NEVER like he knew everything and was perfect beyond all reproach.

So far with this Scarf-wearing Doc--same thing...

Matt Smith comes across as almost a parody of an arrogant, cocksure character, like he's so great he doesn't need to ever worry ever and is beyond reproach...

I LOVE arrogant characters, being an admittedly-arrogant person myself.

Sean Connery's Bond (or, on the whole, just Bond period): arrogant, but NEVER do we believe that there's no chance he can't slip up, he gets captured loads of times, and his slip ups even cost his lady friends their lives now and again...we know he won't DIE, but that's not part of the character, just part of the convention of the series.

Same thing with also-awesome-and-arrogant Captain Kirk--VERY overly-confident, but never to the point where he thinks of himself as being infalliable, all those dead red shirts and Edith Keeler remind him of that...

Hugh Laurie's Dr. House--SUPREMELY over-confident, but the whole reason he has a team is because, as he even admits in the Season 4 episode "Alone" "Sometimes...I AM wrong," and we see him be wrong over and over again in the series.

Sherlock Holmes--very confident, oozing with analytical arrogance, but the best Holmes (Brett shines here) always take a moment or two, after an unfortunate turn in the case, to tell Watson they failed, HE failed, that he missed something and now must work harder...it's part of the strenght of the character, that he's good, but not infalliable, but when he makes mistakes he thinks even harder to make up for them.



Matt Smith comes across as having no depth, just as if he knows it all, hasn't a dobut that he does, and almost as if he doesn't care...which would almost make for an interesting twist in the character itself if not for the fact if he doesn't care, why should I, especially as a new viewer? (And, again--ridiculously-long-scarf, something that in any logical world he'd be tripping over like crazy? Eccentric. Bow Tie? NOW you're just being obnoxious, and not in a good way...) ;)

I haven't really watched much of the older episodes. One of my sons really got into the new ones and watched them all and I've watched a good number of them. Not sure I have too much to add, but I do enjoy the show in general.

Ah, one thing regarding the TARDIS. I think I remember hearing that it would normally be piloted by 8 Time Lords, so one Time Lord doing it by himself leads to some inexactness and unpredictability. This would make it dangerous for him to try and fix things by popping back and forth in little increments. So instead he tries to deal with situations as he can once he gets there. I imagine, but don't know for sure, that they use the TARDIS going to not quite the right where and when as a plot device.

Perhaps someone with some real knowledge can confirm, deny, or correct as needed.

@n8bback: Excellent episode selection.

@Obiwanobiwan:I'm so pleased you've found a good episode to watch. Genesis of the Daleks is one of my favourite episodes. As you've already spotted there are some real dogs out there.

I've been watching Dr Who since it started in 1963. If you can find it somewhere then watch the 2007 Tennant episode "Blink". It's my all time favourite episode. As a bonus it has the delicious Carey Mulligan in it. The BBC trailer is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHoxfE0Kj80&feature=related.

"The Doctor" is a title he chose for himself. He tries to make things better wherever he goes. Think of it like this: when aliens/bad guys are breaking the Prime Directive "The Doctor" tries to stop them.

"I guess there are suddeny random lizard people in the final two seconds" - the lizard people (Silurians) are decendants of an intelligent species whos civilisation was destroyed long before humans evolved. They were here first, so who does the Earth really belong to - Humans or Silurians? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_Doctor_Who)

I haven't read the thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating somebody here, but go find the episode "Blink". Series 3, episode 10. Written by Moffat. It's ... amazing.

@SpeakerToAliens:

But that's just it--I DON'T MIND half the time when someone's breaking The Prime Directive, since half the time that seems like the better thing to do! XD

I mean, to compare two different episodes--and captains--at opposite ends of the spectrum, Kirk, Spock, and Bones violate the Prime Directive by telling people who are living on a rocket they're living on a rocket and NOT a sacred planet, as they thought, in "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky," and save TWO worlds in the process, the rocket-people's "world" and the one they're about to smash into unbeknownst to them, whereas in another episode Captain Janeway beams down to a planet, discovers its about to blow up the next day, and ORDERS that NO ONE help or even tell the people on the planet that this is about to happen even though she may have the means to help them, and her rationale for allowing planet-wide death and the dstruction of an entire race is "You don't know what the consequences could be!"

Granted nearly all the people on the planet were white and perfect blondes, so sure, they MAY have become Goose Steppers In Space...or, far more likely, as they were a peaceful society and their outfit of choice was this rainbow-ty-dye thing, they were just nice folks that she let blow up!

Kirk breaks the Prime Directive--hero! Saved two worlds!
Janeway upholds it--horrible! Let and entire world and people die a horrible death!

And...well, that lizard people conflict STILL makes no sense, then--if I had my spot in line, and lost it, through what ever means, and then someone else takes it fair and square, I don't then therefore have the right to punch them in the face for taking my spot, ESPECIALLY as they're not the ones who forced me out in the first place! This isn't a Cherokee/Americans dilemma, to give my own nation's checkered past as an example, this is...well, Natural Disaster Destroying Race vs. Replacement Race (I don't want to give a real world example for fear of starting a ten page argument on if that race was actually done in by a natural disaster or some other outside force, I can think of a couple I seem to remember were done in at least primarily by a natural disaster, but the point's made...)

So yeah, that episode's basic conflict for me just doesn't work, the same way a lot of Trek episodes, particularly those on VOY--they failed at this quite a bit early on--failed...the "gem:good:clunker" ratio is about 1:3:1 for TOS and TNG, I'd say, and 1:1:3 for VOY and ENT (DS9's the black sheep, since it has long story arcs, so even if an episode is bad it might be an important part of a great story arc, and vice versa, so much harder to rate individual episodes.)



And uh oh...Part 3 of this Dalek thing is only 9 minutes? And then no Part 4...5 and 6 are there, and look like they're full, so at least I'll see the end of this, but the middle's missing...

Just out of curiosity, since I've ranted on it a bit...

Who here DOES like the Prime Directive for Trek/Doctor's Code of Non-Interference, and who shares my sentiment (for Trek, anyway, can't speak with any authority on Who) that it's a 50/50 deal, with half of the time it just being a terrible idea, case in point, Janeway's essentially allowing planet-wide genocide to occur via a planet core explosion her ship could have stopped?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCdJpY5cni0

Wow...that man IS HOLMES! :D

Wrong hair color, of course, Holmes generally is depicted with black hair, or at least darker brown, but otherwise, GREAT performance, almost like Brett, and this is before Brett revolutionized the role, so he's really staking it out for himself...

And a nice play on "How Watson Learned The Trick," good to see that very short, very humorous story get some adaptation on the screen, Brett and Hardwicke had a scene doing that, too...I now wish this man had done more Sherlock Holmes work!

Sorry, Who fans, he should have done THAT instead, then we might have had, between him in the 70s--I'm guessing the 70s by the look of the Who episode, this movie looks a bit later--and Brett ion the 80s and into the 90s, all the stories done and done well! 8

Sorry, Obiwan, but I wouldn't sacrifice 7 of the best seasons of Doctor Who no matter how good it would have been for Sherlock Holmes. Tom is often considered the best of the Doctors.

Jumping back a bit I love the way you analyse the current Dr, and decide that all of his characteristics are reasonable given the back story we've been told, and yet decide that this is still a bad thing.

And I like the no-interference thing. If nothing else, were you to remove it then there should be no story, since the Dr is powerful enough that without his moral code he could do anything he wished.
That said, Smith has rather breached that in this weekends episode...

But I DON'T think the extent to which Smith takes it--again, keeping in mind I've only seen a few of his and a few of Tennant's and, when I get around to watching the end of this one Jack Klein suggested, one of Mr. Baker's--is justified.

Again, I think the approach I've seen so far with the Tennant and Baker versions, ie, being either carefree because he's so powerful a la Q from TNG or else Holmesian as the Baker one is, THOSE make sense for someone with that much power and experience and knowledge, that's a reasonable extent of arrogance.

When you reach the level where you seem just completely disinterested because you're a know-it-all and Mr. Perfect...well, if the actor doesn't give me a reason to care, as an audience member, how can I care and be invested, especially, if I'm just starting out with the show?

To go back to my all-time favorite example of this, Holmes as portrayed by Brett could be aloof, sure, and play the violin, smoke his pipe, refuse to see a client when he was busy and more interested with a chemistry experiment...

But the SECOND he gets into the case, the pendulum swings the other way, and Brett's Holmes was always full of energy and excitement when on the case...a memorable example being once he was so determined to figure out the secret of a room he threw himself to the floor and began clawing at the floor boards, looking for a loose one, like CRAZY! (And of course he found one and that led to...well, that's another story, isn't it?) :)

Or James Bond, any of the "good" ones--which I count, for their varying styles, as Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, as Lazenby was forgetable, Dalton ranged from bland to a bit too crude for Bond, and Craig was FAR too crude for Bond, I can't picture ANY of the three "good" Bonds going as insane as he did in QOS--was aloof or "cooly dissintersted" often enough in the case, preferring some alcholol and a "lady friend," but the second things begin to happen, he leaps into action!

Heck, to move away from--partially--the British, Dr. House is the same way, that same archetype; he'll insult Cuddy and say how uninterested he is in the case...the second he hears something the least bit interesting he grabs it and off he goes, and he goes to extreme lengths, too, and he's arrogant, but not so arrogant to not admit on occasion he was wrong, as he seems to do at least once an episode (after all, if Holmes or House or Bond were right the first time, it'd be a ten minute episode or film, wouldn't it?)

With the Matt Smith character, it just seems like even when things ARE happening and things get rolling he retains that "Oh, come on, THAT'S not impressive, pfff...!" sort of attitude.

Holmes changes out of that, and I care.
House changes out of that.
Bond does as well.

Smith DOESN'T and, again:

If HE doesn't care...how, and why, should I?

And surely he would have had time for both, n8bback?

I mean, he looked like a pretty damn good Holmes, Basil was good for his day, but Brett was king of the role, and Baker looks like he would have been a PERFECT bridge between the two...!

(And anyway, it's all interconnected, I choose to personally think James Bond MUST be related to Sherlock Holmes, and maybe this Doctor Guy is, I mean, even the actors back that up: Jeremy Brett was ousted for the role of Bond by first Lazenby and then, more notably, Moore before he settled into playing Holmes, and this Baker guy apparently has played both Holmes and Doctor Who...

Sherlock, Bond, Who--Past, Present, Future?

And Dr. House can be our American Ripoff!) :p